>lots more entertaining old forum threads

Well, that pretty much knocks any "golden age of the forum" theories firmly on the head.


> ... on SOTCAAbits!

Careful - legally that could constitute an Incitement To Link. And we all know the kind of venomous shit that gets sprayed around the forum now when people start trying to link to SOTCAA...

I don't remember being here last year... in fact I don't remember last year *at all*.

I stand by my light bulb gag from "So ya want comedy?"

Hmm, my favourite bit is the heavily revised history of the forums.

>Careful - legally that could constitute an Incitement To Link. And we all know the kind of venomous shit that gets sprayed around the forum now when people start trying to link to SOTCAA...

Now Mogwai, really...! I just object to Joe linking to an entire radio show on this forum, particularly when it isn't even mentioned on their site.

TJ: i just saw your mention of Let There Be Lighthouse on the old 'SOTCAA does TVGH' thread. I'm happy and heartwarmed. And there's more to come of it very very soon.

Yay! What happened to the projected website?

Simple utter lack of ability i'm afraid. But Issue 10 is coming in a few weeks. Hahaha!

Do let me know when it's out and stuff.

>Hmm, my favourite bit is the heavily revised history of the forums.
>

Hmm, indeed. Am I alone in finding the following:

"When, after an enforced absence, the site returned in November 2000, we insisted on our own forum, seperate to the original so that we could start afresh. This was our 'blue' album."

a trifle arrogant and sinister?

So, the Forum was the Corpses' 1967-1970, was it? Which thread was I Am The Walrus, then? What about everyone else who posted? Don't they get to claim a tiny bit of credit for making the Forum what it was (and continues to be under a different name)?

Aren't you reading a little too much into this, LF? I remember Mike (or was it Joe?) making the "blue album" joke on one of the first threads of the new forum. It was a joke. Referring to the blue-ness of the forum. And nothing more.

The bits I like are where me, Justin, Bent Halo, Unruly Butler, TJ et al actually AGREE on things. Of course, this was before I starting drinking Red Bull.

>Aren't you reading a little too much into this, LF?

Probably not.

> I remember Mike (or was it Joe?) making the "blue album" joke on one of the first threads of the new forum. It was a joke.
>

Really?

> Referring to the blue-ness of the forum. And nothing more.
>

You sure?

>> I remember Mike (or was it Joe?) making the "blue album" joke on one of the first threads of the new forum. It was a joke.
>
>Really?

I really remember it, if that's what you mean. I think it was really a joke, too. I don't think that Joe (or was it Mike?) was really comparing SOTCAA to the Beatles.

>You sure?

Apparently.

It was a joke, I came out and said it, and now it's all this.

>The bits I like are where me, Justin, Bent Halo, Unruly Butler, TJ et al actually AGREE on things. Of course, this was before I starting drinking Red Bull.

Without wanting to be too derisive, the earliest memory I have of us two exchanging words on the forum was you calling me a patronising cunt. Something to do with TV Cream, inevitably.

Up and down, certainly, but never that idealistic and I don't seriously believe that anyone involved in SOTCAA would claim otherwise.

>It was a joke, I came out and said it, and now it's all this.

Without wanting to stretch the joke too far, that must make sotcaabits your "1" album...

>Without wanting to be too derisive, the earliest memory I have of us two exchanging words on the forum was you calling me a patronising cunt. Something to do with TV Cream, inevitably.

Heh, heh. If y' talk like a bitch, I's gonna slap you like a bitch.

>Up and down, certainly, but never that idealistic and I don't seriously believe that anyone involved in SOTCAA would claim otherwise.

See? A year ago we'd have probably agreed on that. But now... Oh, now...

>The bits I like are where me, Justin, Bent Halo, Unruly Butler, TJ et al actually AGREE on things. Of course, this was before I starting drinking Red Bull.

I've never said that I don't agree with you on some things Steve. We even reached some kind of accord over BES.

>Without wanting to stretch the joke too far, that must make sotcaabits your "1" album...
>

Or even the MFP reissue of the Rock and Roll Music double album as two separate LPs.

If this analogy is correct, is Rob S Chapman? Or Yoko Ono?

Does anyone else, when there looking through those old threads, skip over there own posts in case they read something stupid what they wrote. I do, but fortunatly i don't write so much, so everything still makes sense.

>Does anyone else, when there looking through those old threads, skip over there own posts in case they read something stupid what they wrote.

No. We have to learn from our mistrakes.

Why? You don't

>If this analogy is correct, is Rob S Chapman? Or Yoko Ono?

There is only one Chapman - watch it bucky.

>Why? You don't

I haven't made any to learn from.

>It was a joke, I came out and said it, and now it's all this.

I remember the original thread - Mike did say it and Joe followed it with a comment about George Martin I think.

So yes it was a joke. But a joke in which Joe and Mike happily compare themselves to the Beatles. No ego there.

It's a good joke, at least by light bulb joke standards.

Subject: Re: Welcome Back! [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Mike4SOTCAA on Tue Dec 12 14:49:34 GMT 2000:
Joe, is this our blue album?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Welcome Back! [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Joe4SOTCAA on Tue Dec 12 15:11:13 GMT 2000:
Looks like it. Remixed from the original mono opinions by George Martin.

God looks at that - the nerve of these bastards.

Talking of nerve...

The TV forum was never renamed the SOTCAA forum, it was a merger (as anyone who still used the TV forum will know, or those who clicked on the information link and got the TV forum logo).

The merger took place mostly to save disk space on mudhole, as no one was quite sure how big SOTCAA would grow to be (in filesize) and whether it would justify it's own forum. Also, contrary to what SOTCAAbits suggests, the TV Forum was frequently used to discuss comedy - it wasn't all idents and local news programmes. Remember that the forum was started in '96 to allow people to discuss Brass Eye, as C4 kept deleteing all the threads about the programme in their forums after it was postponed. The Brass List started for the same reason.

Part of the idea of using the TV forum in the merger, was to use the existing fanbase of comedy fans already there to build up a SOTCAA audience quickly. To distort something which I did to try and help the site when it first started out is quite sickening...

After the merger, there were problems with some of the regular users of the TV forum of old and the more hardcore SOTCAA readers, but these were specific individual cases and certainly not just 'ident fans'...

It wasn't on Mike and Joe insistance that SOTCAA got it's own forum when it came back in Dec 2000. They (well Joe, I'm not sure what Mike's view was) were not too sure if there should be a forum at all. The reason why it got one was that it was clear it could generate enough traffic to warrant it and that SOTCAA itself was using considerably less disk space than before (because the video and audio files had been deleted).

Now you might think I'm being ott and that these points are insignificant, but that of course is the intention - the errors are supposed to appear benign, assuming you know they are there in the first place. But if there was nothing to be gained by this revised history of the forum, why write it in the first place?

I find the whole of idea SOTCAA bits strange, consisting as it does of recycled old material and forum clips. Selecting individual threads takes away a lot of the context (ie the full forum), which makes it hard/impossible to get a proper view of how things really used to be - much like 'I love 19xx'. Mind you, it does help disguise the fact there hasn't been a full and proper update for getting on for a year now.

Maybe I'm just tired, but reading Rob's message I've just twigged that the threads on sotcaabits don't paint us users of the forum in a very flattering light, whilst at the same time making sotcaa itself look very good. Given Mogwai immediately said 'Well, that pretty much knocks any "golden age of the forum" theories firmly on the head' I have to question if that was the true motive. Plus they must all be from the tv/corpses forum as they're all in yellow and predate Dec?

>The TV forum was never renamed the SOTCAA forum, it was a merger (as anyone who still used the TV forum will know, or those who clicked on the information link and got the TV forum logo).

I'm sure that's true. But it was only meant as a brief comedic overview. If you really feel that strongly about it I'll change the wording slightly.

>The merger took place mostly to save disk space on mudhole, as no one was quite sure how big SOTCAA would grow to be (in filesize) and whether it would justify it's own forum. Also, contrary to what SOTCAAbits suggests, the TV Forum was frequently used to discuss comedy - it wasn't all idents and local news programmes. Remember that the forum was started in '96 to allow people to discuss Brass Eye, as C4 kept deleteing all the threads about the programme in their forums after it was postponed. The Brass List started for the same reason.

And there I was thinking it was mainly used for John! and Suii to shout at each other!

The TV Forum was (and still is) used to discuss television per se, not specifically comedy. The "ident fans" reference was a joke.

>Part of the idea of using the TV forum in the merger, was to use the existing fanbase of comedy fans already there to build up a SOTCAA audience quickly. To distort something which I did to try and help the site when it first started out is quite sickening...

Sickening? Rob, we were all learning as we went along. In retrospect it was a mistake. I wasn't deliberately distorting anything - just doing a quick throwaway summary of events. If we'd planned a 'serious' overview we wouldn't have called it 'SOTCAA Forum Gold' for a start.

>After the merger, there were problems with some of the regular users of the TV forum of old and the more hardcore SOTCAA readers, but these were specific individual cases and certainly not just 'ident fans'...

Indeed, and no literal "unnecessary blood" was spilled in vain either.

>It wasn't on Mike and Joe insistance that SOTCAA got it's own forum when it came back in Dec 2000. They (well Joe, I'm not sure what Mike's view was) were not too sure if there should be a forum at all.

That's rubbish. I remember you were on your usual 'let's make it a members-only mailing list to keep out the idiots' kick - something we were dead against. All three of us agreed though that, in the site's absence, the forum always turned into something slightly trite - with people meandering or smugly knocking its memory assuming there'd be no comeback. The TV/SOTCAA forum had veered that way. We (myself and Mike) wanted to start afresh - with something specifically attached to the site.

Maybe you no longer hold the view that SOTCAA's presence totally shaped what your TV Forum became (you certainly used to). But how many people would actually disagree that it specifically brought together a nice mix of people who were all inspired by its enthusiasm - whether they loved it or hated it - and this is what made the forum(s) work so well. Sorry if that sounds "arrogant".

>The reason why it got one was that it was clear it could generate enough traffic to warrant it and that SOTCAA itself was using considerably less disk space than before (because the video and audio files had been deleted).

But it didn't just magically appear out of nowhere, Rob (and you wouldn't have taken it upon yourself to just add one without telling us). We requested it. I also recall asking if that would be a problem and you saying "Naah - plenty of space now".

>Now you might think I'm being ott and that these points are insignificant, but that of course is the intention - the errors are supposed to appear benign, assuming you know they are there in the first place.

Why are you suggesting that everything we do has some sinister ulterior motive behind it, Rob? The SOTCAAbits page was created as a means for us to stick things on-line immediately without having to worry about bothering webmasters in their day-to-day routine. It started with a single page to enable us to stick the revised Fringe Guide up somewhere (something we'd planned to do anyway even before you decided to cut ties with us) and put the Walters show on-line. Since we had that space anyway, we figured we may as well do something more with it. Maybe it'll come to nothing at all, but it's there if we need it.

For now if you want to download the TGP pisstake animation, it's there. If you want to refresh your memory of the ridiculousness surrounding the HIGNFY transcript, it's there. If you want an old cover image (No jokes, Mogwai), there's a nice selection. What is the problem?

I think you're deliberately creating antagonism where there needn't be any.

>But if there was nothing to be gained by this revised history of the forum, why write it in the first place?

For a laugh, mate. A breesy opener. Better than just writing "Here's some old forum threads - get 'em down ya".

Think of it as a Tony Barrow piece on the back of a...no, actually, don't bother.

>I find the whole of idea SOTCAA bits strange, consisting as it does of recycl

>I find the whole of idea SOTCAA bits strange, consisting as it does of recycled old material and forum clips.

It does exactly what it says on the tin.

>Selecting individual threads takes away a lot of the context (ie the full forum), which makes it hard/impossible to get a proper view of how things really used to be - much like 'I love 19xx'.

Except we're not commenting on the threads - we're just sticking up old ones which entertained people at the time. Neither are we editing them (in fact in a few cases we've added ref material for what's being discussed). The analogy doesn't work.

>Mind you, it does help disguise the fact there hasn't been a full and proper update for getting on for a year now.

"Write a new front page you lazy fuckers", eh? How's the Oink site doing for updates?

There's no need for any of this, Rob. Really there isn't.

>Maybe I'm just tired, but reading Rob's message I've just twigged that the threads on sotcaabits don't paint us users of the forum in a very flattering light, whilst at the same time making sotcaa itself look very good.

Really? I'd say it's all a matter of perspective. If we'd really wanted to paint ourselves as fantastic we'd hardly have included the 'Corpses Do TVGH' thread in which everybody and their uncle slags us off to high heaven. We can't win..

The intro explains why the threads were chosen. A few of them were even requested by readers as per the note on the front page of the mirrored site.

>Given Mogwai immediately said 'Well, that pretty much knocks any "golden age of the forum" theories firmly on the head' I have to question if that was the true motive.

No ulterior motive.

>Plus they must all be from the tv/corpses forum as they're all in yellow and predate Dec?

And Ant too. It's just the first batch. The blue selections will follow. As soon as Apple Records release the masters.

In a way, it subverted the whole lightbulb joke genre, and forced us all to question the very notion of a lightbulb.

It was better as a candle.

and the beatles were shit.

>I'm sure that's true. But it was only meant as a brief comedic overview. If you really feel that strongly about it I'll change the wording slightly.

Whilst I recognise you've put humour in that text (the blood spilled bit for instance), a lot of it doesn't read like a joke at all.

"Rob S linked it to his (already running) TV Forum, renaming it the SOTCAA Forum, and figuring - wrongly as it turned out - that it amounted to much the same thing" reads factual.

>And there I was thinking it was mainly used for John! and Suii to shout at each other!

A distorted view of the forum Joe. Most of the attempts at humour on the forum came after the merger (for obvious reasons) - looking at the archive of the forum reveal a different story.

>The TV Forum was (and still is) used to discuss television per se, not specifically comedy. The "ident fans" reference was a joke.

Yes, but a very large part of that was always comedy, as that was the original starting point.

>Sickening? Rob, we were all learning as we went along. In retrospect it was a mistake.

If by that you mean merging the two forums was a mistake then I'd have to disagree. Yes it did cause some problems, but nothing major, and it did help the start the site off.

>I wasn't deliberately distorting anything - just doing a quick throwaway summary of events. If we'd planned a 'serious' overview we wouldn't have called it 'SOTCAA Forum Gold' for a start.

But why distort facts in the summary then? Just because something is quick, doesn't make it an excuse for sloppyness.

>>After the merger, there were problems with some of the regular users of the TV forum of old and the more hardcore SOTCAA readers, but these were specific individual cases and certainly not just 'ident fans'...
>Indeed, and no literal "unnecessary blood" was spilled in vain either.

Yes I recognise that was supposed to be humourous, but I was trying to lay to rest the myth the TV forum is all about idents. After all, that's what we're partly trying to do here, lay myths to rest? Let's not create some new ones in the process eh?

>That's rubbish. I remember you were on your usual 'let's make it a members-only mailing list to keep out the idiots' kick - something we were dead against.

Funny that's not how I recall it at all. The mailing list was a suggestion, as it a viable option, but it was only made after you got upset with the forum's content during the enforced downtime. It certainly wouldn't of been a 'kick', as mudhole is not set up to run mailing lists and would of involved a lot of extra work.

> All three of us agreed though that, in the site's absence, the forum always turned into something slightly trite - with people meandering or smugly knocking its memory assuming there'd be no comeback. The TV/SOTCAA forum had veered that way. We (myself and Mike) wanted to start afresh - with something specifically attached to the site.

A new forum wouldn't of solved this on it's own. The problem was that you and Mike had limited net access when the forums were merged, so you couldn't control the discussion in the way that you liked. This was solved when the site came back so you were OK with the new forum. When I resigned from SOTCAA you once again wanted the forum closed because, in my view, you once again lost control of the discussion.

>Maybe you no longer hold the view that SOTCAA's presence totally shaped what your TV Forum became (you certainly used to).

Er, the TV forum is chugging along nicely thank you. Might not be up to your lofty standards, but it has a regular user base which is why I kept this forum open.

>But how many people would actually disagree that it specifically brought together a nice mix of people who were all inspired by its enthusiasm - whether they loved it or hated it - and this is what made the forum(s) work so well. Sorry if that sounds "arrogant".

It does. I'm not saying SOTCAA didn't bring a bottle or two to the party, but to suggest that life on the forum started and ended with SOTCAA is very arrogant to say the least.

>But it didn't just magically appear out of nowhere, Rob (and you wouldn't have taken it upon yourself to just add one without telling us). We requested it.

Rubbish, you've never been to sure about forums at all. If you were sure, you would of linked to the comedynet comedy forum (which sprang up shortly after SOTCAA was mirrored there) long ago.

> I also recall asking if that would be a problem and you saying "Naah - plenty of space now".

Yes I recall that the conversation too. It went something like:

R: I've added a forum to SOTCAA now, that OK?
J: Well yes, but won't diskspace be a problem?
R: No, plenty of space now we've got rid of the video and audio files.

Of course, neither of us can proof either version of events so it's a bit pointless.

>Why are you suggesting that everything we do has some sinister ulterior motive behind it, Rob?

Because my view is they are ulterior motives, a fact which has not escaped Anonymous above.

> ...

> ... What is the problem?

There isn't a problem with posting old material, it's just that there appears to be very little work being done on the main site itself, which has been the case for nearly the past year. Why not put all your effort into doing that?

>I think you're deliberately creating antagonism where there needn't be any.

As I said before, why distort the facts in the first place if there is nothing significant about it?

>For a laugh, mate. A breesy opener. Better than just writing "Here's some old forum threads - get 'em down ya".

So you can't write a breezy opener which gets things right and not merely use it as an another exucse to paint yourselves in a better light?

>It does exactly what it says on the tin.

The reason why I find it strange is that your putting all your efforts into that rather than the site itself.

>>Selecting individual threads takes away a lot of the context (ie the full forum), which makes it hard/impossible to get a proper view of how things really used to be - much like 'I love 19xx'.
>Except we're not commenting on the threads - we're just sticking up old ones which entertained people at the time. Neither are we editing them (in fact in a few cases we've added ref material for what's being discussed). The analogy doesn't work.

Yes it does, because your only selecting ones that you consider portray you in a good light. You're taking away the context of all the other threads and the pacing of the creation of each of them - it's not a proper view of the forum at all.

It's like classic music stations playing records from the sixties - they don't sound like the radio stations from the sixties because they're only playing what have become considered to be classics, so people get a distorted view of those times (a rose tinted view). You've done the same thing to present a (imho) distorted view of the forum.

>>Mind you, it does help disguise the fact there hasn't been a full and proper update for getting on for a year now.
>"Write a new front page you lazy fuckers", eh? How's the Oink site doing for updates?

I've not actively tried to build up an audience for that site, and when people have asked I've always explained the situation (hence why it's stuck under WIP on the main NOTBBC page). I've not added a forum to it and told people an update to a particular page will follow soon.

>There's no need for any of this, Rob. Really there isn't.

Again, why create the distorted version of events in the first place Joe? That's where this conversation has come from - your page.

>Really? I'd say it's all a matter of perspective. If we'd really wanted to paint ourselves as fantastic we'd hardly have included the 'Corpses Do TVGH' thread in which everybody and their uncle slags us off to high heaven. We can't win..

So there isn't any defense of SOTCAA at all in that thread? And you're not trying to highlight how a teaser for the sites return could provoke so much discussion? Clearly from some angles it doesn't make the site look so bad...

>The intro explains why the threads were chosen. A few of them were even requested by readers as per the note on the front page of the mirrored site.

I still don't believe it gives a proper perspective on the forum, not least because many discussions spill out into other threads.

>>Given Mogwai immediately said 'Well, that pretty much knocks any "golden age of the forum" theories firmly on the head' I have to question if that was the true motive.
>No ulterior motive.

Hmm, making the forum look bad whilst at the same time making yourselves look good... what could you possibly have to gain, eh?

>>Plus they must all be from the tv/corpses forum as they're all in yellow and predate Dec?
>And Ant too. It's just the first batch. The blue selections will follow. As soon as Apple Records release the masters.

Why not update the main site first?

>>Except we're not commenting on the threads - we're just sticking up old ones which entertained people at the time. Neither are we editing them (in fact in a few cases we've added ref material for what's being discussed). The analogy doesn't work.
>
>Yes it does, because your only selecting ones that you consider portray you in a good light.

this is absolutely none of my business, but fuckit. speaking as someone with no personal ties with any of the major players in this palaver, and therefore the sort of person who might be influenced by this supposed manipulation, i really don't see how you've arrived at this conclusion, rob. seems to me that the corpses have posted up several threads, some of which portray them in a neutral light, and some that frankly make them look a bit silly.

as i wasn't around at the time, i found the whole thing very informative - your comparison with "i love 19XX" is a pretty accurate one, but to suggest it's in some way pernicious (especially intentionally) seems a bit, well, paranoid.

no offense, i'm enormously grateful to both the corpses and yourselffor your sterling services to comedy (and cookdandbombd, while we're on the subject, but that's another story - back online today, fact fans), and like i say, i don't know any of you from adam, or indeed what i'm talking about. it just seems a bit unnecessary from here.

>as i wasn't around at the time, i found the whole thing very informative - your comparison with "i love 19XX" is a pretty accurate one, but to suggest it's in some way pernicious (especially intentionally) seems a bit, well, paranoid.
>no offense, i'm enormously grateful to both the corpses and yourselffor your sterling services to comedy (and cookdandbombd, while we're on the subject, but that's another story - back online today, fact fans), and like i say, i don't know any of you from adam, or indeed what i'm talking about. it just seems a bit unnecessary from here.

No offense taken, I can understand how you arrived at your pov. But my view is arrived at looking at SOTCAAbits as a whole, especially the forums intro text, as well as my experiences of Joe and Mike (particularly Joe). Obviously it's a fine line between trying to have a right to reply to get your point across, and not going into too much personal detail. However, I will defend myself where I feel it is necessary...

I like chips in brown gravy.

Bravo, Mogwai!

It's quite late in the day, but I have to congratulate you for describing "Gusset Weekly" as: "In short, a barrel of old pigs' tits".

I enjoyed reading through some of those old threads, I have to say it does really show that things were mostly as convoluted and inane back then as now in some ways. But I have to say I did notice back in the old days Rob, you did participate a lot more in the discussions, you were writing lots of your own opinions down and helping to shape arguments and discussions in a mature way, which was a good thing, you've relegated yourself to strictly moderator now, whether that be with you being busy or losing interest, and it looks a bit strange with you only popping out to fix some small technical problem now and again or engaging in public arguments with the Corpses.

If you've decided not to let everyone in on the reasons for the break up of your partnership, whether it was on a purely ethical ground or a juvenile spat that got out of control in the case of either party, you should also try and keep these arguments private also. Because it just looks a bit strange and silly, especially as it's being played out in front of a forum of people who don't know the full facts.

I think you're a good bloke Rob, and I know the Corpses are good blokes too, I don't see why you're getting into these silly fights over the motives of sticking old forum threads up for people to read. I remember myself trying to get you to send me the Open Letter to Lee & Herring thread in the middle of the Time Gentlemen Please ruckus, as I had no reference point when reading it at the time as the show hadn't gone out yet. Therefore I sided with Richard Herring like everyone else, once I saw a few episodes of the show, as you well know I quickly changed my tune, and therefore wanted to read it again so I could actually understand what it was talking about. You obviously thought it was a bit of silly request and said no. Now the Corpses have stuck it for everyone to read, I can see all their doubts and criticisms and understand them with the context of the show, at the time nobody would understand the argument and just side with Herring and Murray because the Corpses were seemingly spitefully judging them on the filming of a couple of episodes. Seeing the letter after actually watching the show brings everything into perspective, and was therefore a good reason for actually letting people read it again after the fact. I genuinely think they just put them up because they think people would want to read them, you obviously disagree.

This is all descending into triviality, but anyway, I hope you lot can resolve things, because as I have no reference point again to this argument, not knowing the full facts etc, it just looks wrong for you lot to be having a go at eachother, so I would advise you to carry this on in private if this really is a touchy subject. If only to stop me and the rest of the forum peering on in confusion.

Lo! Joe4sotcaa has spoken, let us all fall at his feet... or stone the fucker to death.

The thing is Joe, to put it bluntly, you and your little clique are sneery, know-it-all, wretched excuses for human beings. No-one is allowed to laugh at something until you give permission, and it's oh so funny for you to shut down a forum so you can write a spoof thread to advertise the relaunch of your obsessive little site. Listen, I'm as sorry as the next person that your eyebrows join in the middle, that you used to wet the bed, and that you can't form meaningful relationships with anyone who doesn't have the entire R4 comedy archives on tape, but do you have to take it out on the rest of us?

When your lot took over the TV Forum that was what killed it. People didn't like the atmosphere anymore, you took the piss out of people who had been there for a long time, weren't causing anyone any harm, and just wanted to discuss television. So what if some people know each other and use the forum to talk? It happens to all forums. But no, if people weren't interested in discussing field removed video or the fucking Goodies then they were sneered at or just ignored till they left.

Have you noticed how much more lively this site is now that you're 'officially' gone? People are no longer worried to express an opinion, there are new forum contributors all the time, and no-one is bothered about occasionally going off-topic, because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter.

I'm glad this forum didn't go the way of the TV Forum, although that seems to be getting back on its feet again. "Nerrr my forums got more threads than youuur forum!" You're like a petulant little child. The TV Forum was a busy forum, full of discussions about all aspects of TV, where the Ident boys were tolerated by the comedy fans, and vice versa, as it had been for years until SOfTCunts took it over. Hopefully more people will stumble across one of the only forums I have ever seen that don't need moderation, because people are happy to just discuss things that they like.

I'll let you go now, I'm sure you have an Airfix model (make sure mummy glues it, wouldn't want the fumes addling your brain now, the world of comedy would be bereft) or a Klingon translation of a Berni Inn menu to be getting on with.

I'm Alan Partridge was funny.
You are a failed, bitter little cunt.

>This is all descending into triviality, but anyway, I hope you lot can resolve things, because as I have no reference point again to this argument, not knowing the full facts etc, it just looks wrong for you lot to be having a go at eachother, so I would advise you to carry this on in private if this really is a touchy subject. If only to stop me and the rest of the forum peering on in confusion.

Steven, whilst I understand your point of view you have understand my point that I am trying to defend myself against something that was posted about me on the Internet. I didn't 'fire the first shot', as it were, but merely having a right to reply. As I said before it's a fine line.

And your right about me not taking part so much anymore, as I don't have as much spare time as I used to (which, if you'll recall, was one of the main reasons why I wanted to give up work on SOTCAA).

>Lo! Joe4sotcaa has spoken, let us all fall at his feet... or stone the fucker to death.

That's *very* nasty! Let them argue it out you anonymous coward. At least the real Moriarty had good disguises.

>Steven, whilst I understand your point of view you have understand my point that I am trying to defend myself against something that was posted about me on the Internet. I didn't 'fire the first shot', as it were, but merely having a right to reply. As I said before it's a fine line.

Yeah, I understand. It just looked like you'd completely changed motive and started getting rid of SOTCAA etc, whilst donning a tall black hat and curly moustache etc, it just looked like you were being the nasty one. Not saying that's true, just that there was stuff going on behind the scenes and as a result, you take action and I just see the results and have to judge from only those facts. I don't know the full story so shall refrain from commenting further.

>And your right about me not taking part so much anymore, as I don't have as much spare time as I used to (which, if you'll recall, was one of the main reasons why I wanted to give up work on SOTCAA).

Yep, fine. Just hope you and the Corpses manage to get back to more friendly terms, and take this to private e-mail or something, because it's the perfect environment for cunts like Moriarty to come out of the woodwork and sneer.

>Rubbish, you've never been to sure about forums at all. If you were sure, you would of linked to the comedynet comedy forum (which sprang up shortly after SOTCAA was mirrored there) long ago.

Why should they?

The comedynet site is a *temporary* mirror (as it says, on the front page). What would there be to gain by getting all the forum-goers to move there in the short term, then expecting them to up-sticks and move once the site comes back elsewhere?

Still, nice to know that you're keeping such a close eye on things.


PS. Have a nice holiday?

Personally, I like the cut of Moriarty's jib and think that he talks a great deal of sense.

>Personally, I like the cut of Moriarty's jib and think that he talks a great deal of sense.

Yes, but you used the word "jib". Get out of here!

>Yes, but you used the word "jib". Get out of here!

It was a joke, I made it and now it's all this. I was using it to compare myself to Brian Poole and the Tremeloes. Or something.

>It was a joke, I made it and now it's all this. I was using it to compare myself to Brian Poole and the Tremeloes. Or something.

Don't you be making stupid quotes up to shut me up! It's never worked before!

In many ways it was more than a mere lightbulb joke. It said something about the human condition.

>>Yes, but you used the word "jib". Get out of here!
>
>It was a joke, I made it and now it's all this. I was using it to compare myself to Brian Poole and the Tremeloes. Or something.
>

Johnny Kidd and the Pirates, surely?
>

>Johnny Kidd and the Pirates, surely?

No-one is worthy of Fred Heath and the Pirates. Especially not me.

This thread was much better before Moriarty turned up.

>Yep, fine. Just hope you and the Corpses manage to get back to more friendly terms, and take this to private e-mail or something, because it's the perfect environment for cunts like Moriarty to come out of the woodwork and sneer.

Yes, I'd hope we'd eventually get on more friendly terms too, but it's very difficult when they choose to post rubbish like that forum history.

You're right, private email is obviously the best place to sort out differences. The problem is (and what you don't seem to see) that the corpses made this public, not me. It's no good defending yourself in private when the damage is being done publicly and the other party already know they're being dishonest.

>Why should they?

Because I would of thought they would be as keen as possible to start afresh elsewhere away from NOTBBC.

>The comedynet site is a *temporary* mirror (as it says, on the front page). What would there be to gain by getting all the forum-goers to move there in the short term, then expecting them to up-sticks and move once the site comes back elsewhere?

Well I can't say I fully understand why comedynet is a temporary site only, as it apparently has everything mudhole could offer and then some (the comedynet forum runs using a scripting language/dbase muddie doesn't support, for example).

>Still, nice to know that you're keeping such a close eye on things.

I'm not, someone pointed the forum out to me.

>PS. Have a nice holiday?

Yes ta.

I have seen more backbiting and arguments on comedy forums than any other web communities (i include c and b). im not having a go at anyone im just noticing.

No you haven't.

>This thread was much better before Moriarty turned up.

I'll put this thread up on Sotcaabits later. That way his comments will magically portray us in a 'good light'!

>I'll put this thread up on Sotcaabits later. That way his comments will magically portray us in a 'good light'!

Except this isn't a 'SOTCAA Forum' thread

I'd just like to chip in my two penn'orth here.

No I'm sorry, there isn't time...

Re-reading the S*r J*m** S**il*e threads reminded me: Did we ever see an explanation from the corpses as to why it was written? There's talk from Rob S of an article being written, but I never saw it.

rOD.

> Did we ever see an explanation from the corpses as to why it was written?

To fool a journalist. It leaked out (due to them rashly putting it on the site, albeit hidden away) before it could get to him. After that it had a life of its own.

Yeah, but if you scroll down to Rob S's HIGNFY Transcript message, he says:

> The Corpses have written a detailed examinaton of the hoax which will be published on the site in a few days time, but this is the full story on how it became public - not quite as exciting as you would imagination, but it is the facts...

That's the bit I'm curious about.

Or is this like asking for the rules to Mornington Crescent?

rOD.

>That's the bit I'm curious about.

I'm sure I read this article you're going about! That or someone patiently explained it all to me. Damn the news and the rumours blur again.

Go to bed, Child.

I suppose, in a way, what I was saying was that we're all lightbulbs, deep down.

>Go to bed, Child.

All bed and no biscuits make Radi something something.

>I suppose, in a way, what I was saying was that we're all lightbulbs, deep down.

Can anybody else hear a strange buzzing sound?

Maybe the lightbulb needs replacing.

I like lightbulbs in.......oh, Christ.....